..... 587 (cc sdny 1889); see also j. hopkins, law of trademarks, tradenames and unfair competition 54, pp. 140-141 (3d ed. 1917); w. browne, law of trade-marks 89b, 89c, pp. 106-110 (2d ed. 1885); restatement (third) of the law of unfair competition 16, comment b (tent. draft no.2, mar. 23 ..... he is protected in his investment from its misappropriation by pirates and cheats. this is the well-established rule of law protecting both the public and the trade-mark owner." s. rep. no. 1333, 79th cong., 2d sess., 3 (1946). by protecting trademarks, congress hoped "to protect the public from deceit, ..... 16 15 the senate report elaborated on these two goals: "the purpose underlying any trade-mark statute is twofold. one is to protect the public so it may be confident that, in purchasing a product bearing a particular trade-mark which it favorably knows, it will get the product which it asks for and ..... wants to get. secondly, where the owner of a trade-mark has spent energy, time, and money in presenting to the public the ..... interpreted as creating, in essence, a federal law of unfair competition. for example, it has been applied to cases involving the infringement of unregistered marks, violations of trade dress and certain nonfunctional configurations of goods and actionable false advertising claims." s. rep. no. 100-515, p. 40 (1988). 19 "trademark .....

..... servants and agents from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising or displaying, directly or indirectly, their toys or stuffed toys under the trademark 'cuddles' or any other trademark identical with or deceptively similar to the aforementioned trademark of the plaintiff.(2) brief facts which led to the present application are : that the plaintiffs a firm and smt. vinay chawla ..... whereas the name of the applicant is not even classified as a toy manufacturer as they have never been toy manufacturers. the stuffed toys manufactured by the respondent under the trademark 'cuddles' have been extensively sold indifferent markets in india, including delhi, since april, 1990. 'the toys manfactured by the respondent are sold in delhi markets under ..... is likely to suffer irreparable loss and injury incase the injunction is not issued in favor of the applicant restraining the respondent from passing of their goods under the trademark 'cuddles' belonging to the applicant. hence the present application. the application is supported by an affidavit.(4) the respondent have resisted and opposed the above application through ..... same on packing material of the aforementioned products. the plaintiff has as such spent a substantial sum of money on the publicity of the said trademark. the plaintiff has been using the said trademark all alone without any interruption or interference from any quarter,whatsoever.(3) the defendant (hereinafter referred to as respondent) are also a dealer .....

..... on the contrary it shows that the petitioners have gone back on the agreement reached between the two parties about self-cancellation of the trademark and got the trademark registered behind the back of the gb group.47. a substantial part of the hearing was spent on complaints regarding the working of ..... should be taken by anyone seeking to withdraw or transfer with or without consideration or, in any other manner, create any encumbrances on any trademarks/trade names, which rightfully belong to the company and are its valuable assets.31. it is the contention of the petitioner that while the saboo ..... : " groz beckert agrees to transfer to the new company free of charge all patents, trademarks and trade names belonging to groz-beckert or over which it has power of disposal for use in india and, if necessary, grant irrevocable licence in respect ..... of the company. in the best interest of gbs, i have taken necessary steps to restore and renew the aforementioned trademark registration in the name of gbs. the aforementioned trademark now stands renewed in the name of gbs until december, 1997 (copy of the renewal certificate is enclosed). i would ..... has been alleged in the petition that gb with the collusion of the sales department, denied the company the valid and full use of its trademark which was expressly agreed to earlier in the collaboration agreement dated april 1, 1960. clause 9(b) of the said agreement clearly provided as under .....

..... application for registration as such shall be entertained unless the agreement between the parties complies with the conditions laid down in the rules for preventing trafficking in trademarks.(2) the permitted use of a trademark shall be deemed to be use by the proprietor thereof, and shall be deemed not to be use by a person other than the proprietor, for-the ..... fiction that this situation in question has arisen which situation is materially distinct and distinguishable in cases where for purposes of joint user the parties have applied for registration of trademark in more than one name. there is, therefore, no conflict whatsoever with the provisions of sections 24 and 48 of the act and even on merits this application is groundless ..... that consequently, an incongruous situation has arisen whereby without joint registration which is only permissible under sanction of the central government, two parties are permitted the joint use of the trademark. he contends that this situation results in an infringement of statutory provision and that it is, therefore, essential to correct the error.8. normally, i would have refused to go ..... as the same constituted property. the accused moved the high court for quashing of the criminal proceedings, inter alia, contending that they were within their legal rights in using the trademarks in question as they were the registered owners of the same and that regardless of the take over of the unit, that the law could not preclude them from exercising .....

..... being published by the defendant on the plaintiffs' plea that the plaintiff is already publishing a magazine under the title 'grahshobha' which is also registered under the trade & merchandise marks act 1958 under registered trademark no. 387789 in class 16 in respect of printed publication. it is alleged that the plaintiff has been publishing grahshobha since january 1988 but the registration of the ..... most important factors to distinguish one from the other. (9) the case of title to the magazines even though registered as a trademark, shall have to be examined in the light of the audience and the possibility of resulting confusion besides other considerations. in the past, there have been disputes over the ..... . reported as : air1941bom3 . that was a case of a particular product and not title of a magazine. normally if the idea and meaning conveyed by the registered trademark and the alleged infringing mark is the same and if there is phonetic similarity and general get up of the magazines also bears close resemblance with one another, the registered proprietor would entitled ..... appears to bear similarity with one another. but in view of the discussion above, it cannot be said in the absence of evidence that use of mark grahlakshmi would amount to infringement of the trademark grahshobha. buyers of such magazines are not illiterate persons and are able to distinguish between the two and with phonetic dissimilarity which is one of the .....

..... in the said places. it is also false to state that the products were seen in the market at visakhapatnam. the defendant has applied for registration of its trademark to the trademarks registry at bombay on 8th january, 1988 and the number of the application is 483987. the product in question is an excisable commodity. for moving any quantity of ..... submits that the principle underlined by clause 14 of the letters patent is to avoid multiplicity of litigation. the submission is correct and deserves acceptance. the infringement of trademark and passing-off and the cause of action pertaining to the infringement of copyright arise out of the action of defendant in selling medicinal preparations and though different causes ..... violation. in paragraph 8 of the plaint, the plaintiff has said:the plaintiffs have, spent considerable amounts extending to crores of rupees by way of publicity expenses for popularising their trademarks under which super dust tea', is sold. the plaintiffs have carried out the publicity all over india through television, cinema slides, hand bills, newspapers and magazine advertisements. the ..... infringement of copyright should not be ordered, he has for that reason also held that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit with reference to infringement of trademark and passing off. in the application for injunction restraining the defendant from committing any infringement of the copyright learned judge has said that prima facie no infringement of .....

..... on its own design and specification-technology, duly patented in its favour, and sells the same in india. the petitioner no. 1 uses its own registered trademark 'vulcan' with or without its own house-mark 'esbi' in respect of the said product of its manufacture. the petitioner no. 1 is the sole consultant of m/s. vulcan kupplungs-und getriebebau, germany ..... admits that it has been authorised by the german firm to use the trademark 'vulcan' in india. the petitioner has been permitted to use this trademark as an owner thereof. he has applied and obtained registration of this trademark in his own name. so far as india is concerned the trademark belongs to the petitioner. the central excise act is applicable throughout the ..... territory of india only. the petitioner is using its own trademark in india and not of somebody else. therefore, the allegation that the petitioner is using somebody else's trademark militates against the provisions of the trade & merchandise act, 1958 which are applicable throughout the territory of india.15. in that view of the ..... of the said german company.3. the petitioner company is the registered proprietor of the trademark 'vulcan' duly registered under the trade and merchandise marks act, 1958, registration certificate being no. 357227, dated 4th january, 1980 issued by the registrar of trademark.4. the case of the petitioner is that it has the exclusive right and authority to use the said registered .....

..... invoke the provisions of section 111, the court has the power and duty to stay the suit so far as it relates to infringement of trademark. the court frying the suit must wait for the result of the rectification proceedings before it passes any final order or decree involving the validity ..... if any proceedings for rectification of the registrar in relation to the plaintiffs trademark is pending before the registrar, stay the suit pending final disposal of such proceedings. the learned judge further was of the view that the plaintiff ..... that section 111 see'ks to prevent parallel enquiries in the same matter and where the defendant pleads that the registration of the plaintiff's trademark is invalid, he would be entitled to ask for a stay of the suit if the other conditions specified in the section are satisfied. that ..... the registrar it would indicate that such application has been made not for any declaration of the validity or invalidity of the registration of the trademark of the plaintiff inasmuch as the appliction has been made by invoking the provisions of section 46(l)(b) on the allegations that the plaintiff ..... is under section 111(1) where in any suit for the infringement of a trademark the defendant pleads that the registration of the plaintiffs trademark is invalid or the defendant raises the defence under section 30. in that case the court trying/ the suit shall, .....

..... such an agreement for the purposes of section 80-o of the act.56. it had also taken the view that a consideration for the use of the assessee's trade-mark would be outside the purview of section 80-o. subsequently, however, the board changed its line of approach on these two issues. in its circular no. 253 dated 30-4 ..... :(ix) in the case of a composite agreement specifying a consolidated amount as consideration for purposes which include matters outside the scope of section 80-o (e.g. use of trademarks, supply of equipment etc.) the amount of the consideration relating to the provision of technical know-how or technical services, etc. qualifying for purposes of section 80-o will have ..... be inducted.6. does the agreement provide for supply of technical know-how or rendering of any services other than those covered by s. 80-o (e.g. use of trademarks or supply of goods) if so, please specify them and also the amount of consideration receivable/received in respect of them.the agreement also provides for the supply use of ..... 'capital gains') for -(i) the transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of a licence) in respect of a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trademark or similar property; (ii) the imparting of any information concerning the working of, or the use of, a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or .....

..... mcdowell & company limited v. commercial tax officer : [1985]154itr148(sc) ). in the case of liquor having a brand name or a trademark, the embossment of the said brand name or trademark on the bottle would indicate the integrality of the bottle with the liquor contained in it; the transaction of sale, will be the sale of ..... the particular liquor with that brand name or trademark and the goodwill attached to the name or the trademark could be considered as having gone into the bargain of sale; liquor on its own cannot bear this brand name or ..... trademark. this will certainly be a relevant factor to the considered along with other factors referred to in raj sheel's case [1989] 74 stc ..... but that circumstance alone cannot be conclusive of the true character of the transaction. it is not unknown that traders may, for the advantage of their trade, show what is essentially a single sale transaction of product and container, or a transaction of a sale of the product only with no consideration for ..... beer, or gunny bags for packing cement. the high court proceeded on the basis that having regard to the nature of the goods and to the trade practice in respect of beer and cement the containers were necessary concomitants in the transactions, and the transfer of property in the containers was incidental or unavoidable .....